[[ changing subject, as this is less about rtw89; it used to be: Re: [PATCH v6 02/24] rtw89: add BT coexistence files ]] On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:26 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A small tip for future drivers, try to remove all the optional features > from the driver as much possible and keep only the absolutely needed > features to get ping working. For example this file was pain to review > and I suspect coex support could have been submitted separately. I find that a bit of a tall order. You haven't looked at this driver for 9-10 months: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20201230044223.14085-1-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx/ Do you expect people to just live with a feature-less driver (read: unusable) for all that time? As noted in other parts of this thread, quite a few people are already using this driver; so your suggestion implies people should submit a completely different driver to you (i.e., more or less non-working) than the one everybody else wants to use -- or else suffer for those 9-10 months. For the record, Realtek _did_ try this for rtw88, where they partitioned their driver work into stages, submitting you only the first stuff over the period of 9 months before you merged it: rtw88 RFC v2; I couldn't find v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/1538553748-26364-1-git-send-email-yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ Committed about 9 months later: https://git.kernel.org/linus/e3037485c68ec1a299ff41160d8fedbd4abc29b9 But it was several months after that before the rest of the really-usable features were submitted and actually landed properly. So it sounds like with your suggested approach (like rtw88), it can take over a year to get a usable driver merged. For this approach, I guess it's 9+ months (TBD; but you seemed more or less happy with this version, minus some small comments). I can see why folks would choose the latter. Or maybe, those timelines sound altogether bad [1], and we should consider some alternative. If the review and feedback (or merge) cycle was quicker, I'm sure people would be happier to split work into bite-sized chunks. But when it's slow and lacking in transparency, people are instead incentivized to just publish everything at once. Do you need additional help? A reviewer team? I do occasionally try to help things a lot with review on-list, but it's not clear that it has any bearing on time-to-acceptance, so I don't exactly stretch myself. Brian [1] They do to me.
